Alfred Amonn, Emanuel Hugo Vogels „Ziel der Währungspolitik“. Einige Feststellungen (1922)

Alfred Amonn’s rejoinder examines Emanuel Hugo Vogel’s response to his earlier essay on monetary policy. Across ten numbered clarifications, Amonn disputes the proposition that Austria’s economic recovery requires appreciation of the krone rather than stabilization at its existing level. His governing distinction separates the permanent level of a currency’s purchasing power and exchange rate from changes in that level: the former is economically indifferent in his account, whereas the latter entails consequential adjustments.

The opening argument reconstructs an apparent contradiction. Vogel had linked recovery to raising the krone to four or five Swiss centimes, but subsequently claimed agreement with Amonn while denying that he prescribed an absolute target. Amonn rejects this reconciliation:

Es hat daher in keinem Falle einen Sinn und kann nur Leser irreführen, wenn Vogel behauptet: „so steht mein ganzer Aufsatz, wie aus jeder Zeile zu entnehmen, selbstverständlich ebenfalls auf genau demselben Standpunkte“.

English translation: It therefore in no case makes sense, and can only mislead readers, when Vogel asserts: "thus my entire essay, as may be gathered from every line, likewise stands of course on exactly the same standpoint."

For Amonn, observing that “high” and “low” exchange rates are relative descriptions cannot resolve the disagreement. His objection concerns the economic significance attributed to any permanent rate, whether expressed as a fixed number of centimes, a multiple of the current rate, a fraction of prewar parity, or a comparison with another currency. Changing the numerical form of the target leaves the substantive dispute intact.

Amonn next scrutinizes Vogel’s replacement criterion: the degree of “tension” between Austria’s currency and leading foreign currencies, measured against corresponding relations in neighboring countries. He notes that the original numerical target has disappeared:

Von dem Kursstand der Krone von 4—5 Schweizer Centimes ist allerdings mit keinem Wort mehr die Rede.

English translation: Of the crown's exchange rate of 4 to 5 Swiss centimes, however, there is no longer a word said.

Yet the new formulation supplies no operational standard for judging an acceptable relationship between currencies:

Irgendein Anhaltspunkt für das zulässige Maß der Entfernung wird allerdings nicht gegeben.

English translation: Any point of reference for the permissible measure of the divergence is, however, not given.

These omissions support Amonn’s contention that Vogel has modified his language without establishing a coherent alternative position. References to creditworthiness and international confidence similarly depend on an unexplained conception of an abnormally low currency value. Amonn distinguishes the inconvenience of calculating with large denominations from an economic impediment. His historical comparisons reinforce that distinction: differences among the prewar mark, dollar, and pound did not themselves establish corresponding differences in economic strength, and replacing guilders with crowns did not intrinsically facilitate exchange.

The sixth clarification develops the distributional argument. Against Vogel’s claim that appreciation and falling prices temporarily increase workers’ consumption capacity, Amonn distinguishes the purchasing power of a monetary unit from that of a money wage. Unless lower prices reflect increased production, he maintains, monetary appreciation requires at least a corresponding reduction in wages. He recognizes an exception where wages have not yet adjusted to earlier depreciation, but argues that wage increases under a stable monetary value could secure the same improvement. Appreciation also introduces difficulties of sales and employment. The underlying constraint is the available supply of goods, which monetary revaluation cannot itself enlarge.

The subsequent sections connect conceptual criticism with the exchange’s personal tone. Amonn finds no determinate economic meaning in Vogel’s descriptions of an “abnormally” low-valued or “sufficiently” valued currency. He defends his characterizations of Vogel’s reasoning as judgments of scientific method, while acknowledging that criticism of a work bears upon its author’s intellectual capacities. The polemic thus exposes its own contested boundary between analytical evaluation and personal disparagement.

The closing clarifications revisit Vogel’s disputed propositions, including his rejection of budget deficits as a cause of inflation, and defend theoretical distinctions against appeals to practical realism. A fiscal example extends the nominal–real distinction: appreciation raises the real burden of unchanged nominal taxes, so preserving the same real burden would require nominal tax reductions.

The rejoinder insists that monetary denomination, transitional price movements, and real productive capacity must be analyzed separately. Within Austria’s currency-reform debate, Amonn demands defined criteria and causal explanations rather than treating a higher exchange rate as an independent source of prosperity. His argument is chiefly critical, challenging the coherence of the case for appreciation while revealing the close connection between methodological disagreement and polemical self-defense.